President Obama’s four years in the Presidency have been a colossal failure and WE, Americans, are NOT BETTER OFF than four years ago.

Here is the video:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0zPRt5EnjWg[/youtube]

It is funny that Obama is running ads featuring President Bill Clinton.

President Obama, you are NOT Bill Clinton.

If American voters, re-elect Obama, they can look forward to another four years of a stagnant economy and increasing unemployment. In addition, more and more state/local governments will be facing bankrupty.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 4th, 2012 at 5:58 am and is filed under Barack Obama, President 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

OK, so the choice may be *clear* to
you, but why not problematize this for those of us who enjoy looking into these
things a little deeper? You’ve made some rather dire predictions here about the
continuation of the Obama presidency. Why don’t you offer a few supporting
statements? Perhaps one or two for each prophecy? Or, if you prefer, offer us
some insight into the world of rainbows and sunshine that awaits us all on the
other side of a Romney/Ryan victory.

I think you’d agree with me that economic recovery is too complex a process to lay at the feet of one person, one political office, or even one branch of government. The link you offer, while identifying key problems in terms of the country’s financial stability, leaves out a number of contributing factors. The U.S. suffers from systemic unemployment and underemployment due, in large part, to the efforts of corporate entities that have replaced wage increases with consumer credit over the last three decades. Job creation is strictly a function of dramatic levels consumer demand. After all, there’s nothing that cuts into profits like having to hire people. Credit-based demand is a hollow economic process if no one is paying off the principal debt. Now that it is clear that the credit supplied to lieu of wage increases will not be paid off in any realistic fashion the people working because of that credit-based demand are being let go. Moreover, consumers are running out of new credit, so they cannot create any new demand to build new jobs. The only realistic solution is to force corporate entities to recycle their profits back into the system, allowing customers access to “real” capital that can produce real demand. So I suppose you and I agree at least on a need to, “reform the tax code.”

As for medical programs and Social Security, I think their percentage in the budget shows that we are a nation that wants to support for its elderly and infirm–a rather noble endeavor that probably helps a lot us sleep better at night. Now I suppose we could make cuts to these programs, but the end result would be a lot more sick and elderly people enduring prolonged periods of suffering in our streets and in our public parks before giving up the ghost in a number of colorful ways. If you are strong enough to enduring the mewling cries of these grotesque hordes, I envy you…either that or I’ll just have to find some better earplugs.

Those who seek to merge healthcare with the forces of supply and demand, like your associate in the link above, either forgot to read up on the recent history of such mergers (such as the unholy aberration spawned by splicing bankers with investment brokers) or they actually possess the psychology necessary look at themselves in the mirror and say, “Wow, wouldn’t it be neat-o if we could make cancer treatment into a luxury item!”

Oh, you do wound me sir! Not only with your brush-off response devoid of the details and insight I crave, but with the suggestion that I would employ a Straw Man strategy. Such a barb implies that I lie in order to achieve my aims and that I somehow benefit from doing so. I would rather you’d suggested I was ignorant of some fact or that I had missed some relevant cultural data or theory in constructing my argument.

So be it then. Let us assume for the moment that I have attempted a Straw Man gambit. The resolution then is quite simple:

As the Straw Man implies that individual/group A claims that individual/group B maintains belief and/or practice Y instead of belief and or practice X that she/he actually holds, you can rebut my effort by merely solving for X. We know the values of A (your humble commenter), B (various elements of Western corporate culture)* and Y (the values and outcomes I have attributed to these elements). It’s basic algebra from this point forward: set equal to X and divide by Y, thereby showing me that the equation can exist without my suppositions. Happy calculating! I look forward to your solution.

*If it helps, think of B as variable relative to the depth and breadth of the argument. We can use it to examine a single corporation as a microcosm of corporate culture or we can talk about corporate culture as a generalized whole; your choice.

I am not asking you to discuss my statements. Stomp on them, eradicate them, tear them to pieces; whatever metaphor you feel justifies the act of refutation. I have even presented you with a set of tools you could apply to the effort should you wish. Frankly, it disturbs me that someone acting as a node for so much political information would not make the effort to undue and dispatch what he terms a “fallacy”. It’s rather disappointing to challenge someone who claims to hold strong political opinions and hear the equivalent of, “Eh, I don’t wanna,” in response.